The Promise of Obamacare vs. the Reality of Obamacare

The health law has always required difficult tradeoffs.


credit—Paul Hennessy/Polaris/Newscom

There's a strain of pro-Obamacare sentiment which acknowledges its flaws—or some of them, anyway—but argues that it's worth it because the law has helped so many people by expanding coverage. It's an argument that essentially ignores the people that Obamacare has made worse off.

Consider, just to take the most prominent recent example, the more than 9,000 residents of Pinal County, Arizona, who relied on the exchange set up by Obamacare for subsidized health coverage this last year. None of those people will be able to get subsidized coverage through the exchange next year, because no insurer will serve the county's exchanges; it is an illustration of what could happen inside Obamacare's insurance marketplaces should more insurers follow Aetna, UnitedHealth, and others in scaling back their exchange participation.

It is also a reminder of the ways in which the law has made life worse for some people. As the Cato Institute's Health Policy Director Michael Cannon notes in a piece for Time, the lack of any insurer serving Pinal County's exchange means is that "if you're a Pinal County resident who had a pre-Obamacare plan that covered your (now-preexisting) medical condition, Obamacare took away your coverage and the long-term protection it provided. It has left you either with far more expensive coverage, or no coverage at all."

Perhaps supporters of the law believe that this is just an acceptable tradeoff, a cost that is worth the law's other gains. After all, this affects less than 10,000 people. But Pinal County looks like it could be just the beginning: Next year, about a third of counties in the country will be served by just one insurer. At least one state health insurance regulator has reported allowing insurers to raise individual insurance premiums by significant margins out of fear that more carriers will drop out of the exchanges, leaving more counties like Pinal.

In any case, this is not how the law was sold to the public in 2009 and early 2010, when it was being debated. The promise of the law was that individuals could keep their health plans and their doctors, and that families would save money on health care in the process. The inevitable tradeoffs and ungainly realities of the law were ignored or downplayed or denied altogether—probably because if they had been acknowledged from the beginning, the law would not have passed.

NEXT: Supreme Court Rejects Ohio Libertarians, EU Says Apples Owes Billions, U.N. Calls Burkini Bans 'Stupid': A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The inevitable tradeoffs and ungainly realities of the law were ignored or downplayed or denied altogether?probably because if they had been acknowledged from the beginning, the law would not have passed.

    Look. The people who wrote the law had good intentions, and good intentions do not cause bad results. So anything bad that happens is because of people with bad intentions, namely those damned insurance companies that put profits before people. Duh. All reality-based people know this.

    1. you mean surreality based people, surely.

      1. Oh, they had a good intention all right: break healthcare so we would all be forced to accept crappy single payer run by government that will make VA care look like it is gold plated.

    2. The inevitable tradeoffs and ungainly realities of life itself are ignored or downplayed or denied altogether.

      But there are no ideal solutions, only trade-offs. Sorry.

    3. Also, the Republican lawmakers and conservative and libertarian writers who pointed out the many, many defects in the law. It’s obvious that they not-so-secretly want everyone to die from lack of health insurance, so their ill-intentions ruined the law.

      That’s science!

      1. Democrats wrote the law and passed it all on their own. The Republicans wouldn’t help, so obviously any flaws are the Repub’s fault. It’s just common sense.

        1. All that Republicans and libertarians had to offer were prescient criticisms of a law nobody who voted for it bothered to read. That’s not helping!

  2. It’s an argument that essentially ignores the people that Obamacare has made worse off.

    Someone who mows people down on his drive to utopia rarely looks in the rear view mirror.

    1. *prolonged applause*

      Oh, stolen as well.

    2. Buckle up, buckaroo!

      (I also like this line, Fisticus)

    3. 9/10, would have been better to have them riding a high speed choo-choo.

      1. High-speed trains are all about breaking ground. You’re lucky if you get a train in the end.

      2. Oh, don’t be the East German judge… it’s was at least a 9.9

  3. “I don’t pay a dime for Obamacare, but I do pay taxes, therefore I have no qualms about getting “free” health insurance. See also roads, sewer systems, national defense.”

    So, troll? Sock? Random imbecile?
    Gee, I pay taxes, therefore free food! Free housing! Free cars!

    1. I’ve been assured that health care is a “basic human right”. As such, in a “free country”, it only figures that we should have “free health care”.

      1. If you were assured that ice cream was a “basic human right”, would you believe the person who told you? Or would you back away slowly with your hand on your wallet?

        1. What flavor? Can I get Rainbow Swirl?

          1. “Free ice cream” would be store-brand Sherbert served warm.

        2. I’ll believe anything if I get free ice cream.

    2. Actually Sevo, the Artful Dodger is a Reason supporter!

      Note, he is commenting on the SolidOpinion commenting platform, which pays Reason to use them, and he has to pay them (or at least provide them with info they sell to advertisers) to comment on the platform!

      1. So you might consider him/her a “useful idiot”?

      2. That’s amusing irony of the promoted comment system–the only people that really use it appear to be sockpuppets who wandered over from Balloon Juice or LGF, and are paying Reason to keep this deadlift-promoting, Sasquatch hiker-raping, extreme right-wing forum alive and well.

        1. They think they are spreading wisdom to childish libertarians.

          1. Childish utopians

          2. Does anyone read the promoted comments? I skip below them. Like paid links in google.

            1. “No-Script”… I don’t even see them!

        2. Yeah, I’m a big fan of the “Promoted Comment” system. We have to deal with the fuckwit trolls anyway, might as well get them to give money to Reason while they’re at it.

          1. And it keeps them out of the comments. It’s like a filter for retards.

            1. “Please apply ‘Tard Filter to each comment thread you wish to keep clean.”

        3. Not true. I’ve used it once or twice and not paid a dime!

    3. I also like the phrase “I pay taxes”, as though one has any choice in the matter.

      1. Or that someone else pays 20x the taxes but receive the same services.

    4. Also; do the people that Obamacare was supposed to target pay taxes?

  4. Let’s be clear, what you refer to as the ‘promise of the law’ made by its supporters was a lie. What we’re seeing now is (yet another ) case where reality intrudes on liberal wishful thinking.

    And let us also not overlook that Obamacare is far more than just the health exchanges, and that it isn’t just would-be customers of the exchanges who are worse off. Millions (my guess, you’re welcome to prove me wrong) of people who have coverage outside of the exchanges are not only paying more for health insurance than pre-Obamacare but are also receiving less in coverage (due to higher co-pays and deductibles).

    1. Hundreds of millions are definitely paying higher taxes to support the law. Every employer provided health insurance plan now pays a direct tax and indirectly subsidizes the cost of Obamacare.

      It’s almost as if it’s not really free insurance.

      1. Almost?

  5. I remember people in favor of this law telling me how urgent and important it was that it get passed ASAP, as they were having trouble affording the premiums and costs of their current plans! It was all about them! That most of those same people continue to defend the law, even after eating thousands upon thousands of dollars of additional costs, fascinates me, as they seem to have shoved self interest out of their way as a way of preserving their pride.

    1. I remember people in favor of this law telling me how urgent and important it was that it get passed ASAP

      Well, they weren’t wrong. Dems were due for the midterm drubbing in a few months.

  6. “An early estimate from ObamaCare analyst Charles Gaba finds that for nine states the average approved premium increase for next year is 27.6 percent.

    Most consumers will not feel the effects of these increases, because they receive …” free shit from the government.

    That’s my attempt to shorten and clarify that overly long explanation.

  7. Next year, about a third of counties in the country will be served by just one insurer.

    That’s crazy. I need to start smoking again.

  8. Who the fuck edited this turkey?!?

    First para ends:

    It’s an argument that essentially ignores the people that Obamacare has made worse off.

    Next para gives an example of the people made worse off.

    Next para starts:

    t is also a reminder of the ways in which the law has made life worse for some people


    Does no one proof read?!?!?

    1. Peter Suderman is a managing editor at Reason.com, where he writes regularly on health care, the federal budget, tech policy, and pop culture.

      Perhaps Peter edited his own draft
      This is what happens when people critique themselves 😉

    2. Proof reading is so 20th century. You know, back when they used quill pens and guys wore powdered wigs.

    3. Reason can’t afford copy editors because you cheap bastards won’t shell out for a subscription. Sad!

      1. Can’t afford it. I have free health care to pay for…

    4. It’s all the fault of the Gig Economy.

  9. There are a million ways to explain why this law sucks. Most of those ways, however, boil down to one sentence. The law brought millions of people into the health care system by either giving them or making them buy insurance they did not previously have while doing nothing to increase the supply of healthcare and in fact reducing the supply in some ways.

    This is one of those cases where it really is a zero sum gain. The people who had health care were going to have to suffer so some people who didn’t could get it. This law was if nothing else just nasty crude theft and redistribution.

    1. This is one of those cases where it really is a zero sum gain.

      Not even that, I am pretty sure it is negative sum.

      Most “equality” issues are negative sum.

      1. The only way to achieve equality in wealth is to destroy the incentive to acquire wealth.

        1. Equality is the lowest common denominator.

        2. Make everyone beggars, because beggars are easier to please…

  10. I don’t pay a dime for Obamacare, but I do pay taxes, therefore I have no qualms about getting “free” health insurance. See also roads, sewer systems, national defense.

    The gullibility is astounding. Hey, give me a substantial amount of every paycheck you make and I’ll get you some “free stuff” too. Don’t worry, it will be the very best thing I can afford, I would never just scrounge for some crap in the trash and give that to you so I can keep the money for me and my friends. You can totally trust me!

    1. Oh, and if you don’t like the quality of what I give you, blame this other guy who wants to let you keep your money. What a jerk!

    2. Meh. I agree with it. It’s the old “You don’t believe in social security, you shouldn’t accept it!”. No, fuck that, if I’m going to have 12.8% of my salary taken from me by force I may as well see some of that benefit the government says I’m going to get in exchange.

      There’s no real disconnect between saying that and saying “But I shouldn’t be getting those things from the government because the government’s got no business taking my money to do that”.

      1. You are correct Bluster.

        There should be no reason for you to refuse “free” things from the government. You’d have to be pretty stupid to do so.

        That also shouldn’t prevent you from trying to stop the government from taking money away from you in the first place.

      2. I used to agree with that idea, then I lived in a city with a public library that used the numbers of library users (one of whom was me) to justify an exorbitant multi-million dollar renovation. Obviously, just because you use a service that doesn’t mean you agree with expanding it, but public officials argue the opposite all the time. Conversely, the only time I’ve seen public services pared down is when people don’t use it. (i.e. schools with declining enrollment)

        But my main point was that government services are frequently like accepting garbage because it’s “free”. Are you really better off with it than if you just moved on with your life? Medicaid is a good example since studies have shown the outcomes are worse than no insurance. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB…..0858303612

        1. Unemployment benefits and welfare are more good examples since they create a disincentive for finding work.

          1. Even if they didn’t, they would be unacceptable. The transfer costs involved in getting the money from persons X, Y, Z, et al, and on to the unemployed and welfare recipients (and library users, farmers, etc) are never accounted for. Yet no matter how wonderful the ‘benefit’, it comes with excess cost compared to any other means of providing those services.
            It’s not the librarians, or the unemployed, or the works at the unemployment agency I hate, it’s the taxman and his minions, supervisors, and subordinates.

            1. Shirley you can’t be serious.

        2. I too have spent an inordinate amount of time in a public library.

          1. So do you like the shiny new modern library renovations as a backdrop for your “literary endeavors” or do you find them too sterile?

      3. Exactly that. You make rational choices based on the circumstances. You not obligated to make irrational choices against your own interests to establish your ability to object to something.

  11. It was clear from the beginning, and it was said many places (including by a lot the people here) that the law was designed to fail and was a stalking horse for a single payer system. We’re right on target for President Clinton to endorse that in a year or two.

    1. I refuse to believe a nefarious plot when two houses of politicians are involved, easier to believe incompetence and greed.

      1. “Nefarious plot,” and “incompetence and greed,” are not mutually exclusive. In the case of Obamacare, both are true.

    2. We’re right on target for President Clinton to endorse that in a year or two.

      I thought she already had. Or Barry had, maybe?

      1. Since she’s tugging on Obama’s coattails, thanks in part to the big steaming turd of an endorsement Obama gave her, she couldn’t exactly criticize the ACA. So she does the typical progressive shuffle: we need to double down on the derp.

    3. It’s clear to anyone with a brain in his head, but Pete Macadoodle Suderweigel (or PMS for short) worships Obama, and frankly is almost as stupid as he is dishonest.

  12. Obamacare is a classic example of a cycle I see over and over. The Progressive Left comes up with what it thinks is a nifty idea. The Conservative Right or the Libertarians point out a number of fairly obvious flaws that will turn this nifty idea into A Huge Mess. The Progressive Left calls there detractors evil names and implements their nifty idea. All the predicted flaws show up almost immediately and, as predicted, make A Huge Mess.

    And the Progressive Left has the gall to act surprised.

    If the Republican establishment would A) learn to play hardball and B) buy some goddamned media and flat-out say “more than three quarters of the reporters in the rest of the media self-report as Liberal. You know their side. This is ours.” we MIGHT be able to put a stop to this.

    1. And the Progressive Left has the gall to act surprised and demand a new, more complex, more expensive and more intrusive idea to fix their Huge Mess

      You left out a critical step, but otherwise correct.

      1. Yeah; they ACTUALLY expect us to think “Oh, goody! Another luxury cruise from the wonderful folks who brought us the Titanic! Sign me up!”

        I don’t know what’s worse; that they expct that, or that in so many cases they seem to be right.

    2. learn to play hardball…good one. oh, you were serious ?

    3. Most Republicans are closet progressives anyway.

      1. Not exactly. Most establishment Republicans are closet Statists. Not necessarily Progressive, but defnitely in favor of power resting in their neatly manicurd hands.


  13. Perhaps supporters of the law believe that this is just an acceptable tradeoff, a cost that is worth the law’s other gains.

    Something something diffuse costs, something concentrated benefits something…

    1. Hooooney, what does the talking points memo say?

  14. Oh, snap! Artful Dodger just totally refuted all of libertarianism in his promoted comment!

    How did no one think of TEH ROADZ?

    1. Without government, no one could ever build a road. NO ONE.

      1. During the 19th century more than 2,000 private companies financed, built, and operated toll roads.

        1. They had slavery in the 19th century, do you want to bring back slavery too?? /raises arms, takes victory lap

          1. This is like that 13D string theory chess thing I keep hearing about.

            1. I can’t tell if rob’s not getting me, or if I’m not getting rob. Granted, I am pretty stupid, so it’s probably the latter. For anyone confused (other than me), I was doing a sarcastic bit.

              1. I got you, I was playing along.

                1. Like I said: I’m pretty stupid. /resumes eating paint chips

        2. Yeah. Sure. So then poor people wouldn’t be able to leave their homes because they would need to pay a toll to exit their driveway. Libertarians want everyone to be slaves to the corporations!

          *pats self on back for successfully moving the goal posts*

      2. Well, duh! From whom would you get the road building permit?

    2. I just hope we can get a public health system that’s as in touch with people’s basic needs as our infrastructure and military. Especially the VA.

  15. Showing up in my facebook is a picture from a year ago of a guy thanking firefighters for saving his house from a forest fire. His t-shirt says “Lower Taxes + Less Government = More Freedom”. This of course shows what a HYPOCRITE ! he is for wearing an “anti-government” message while thanking the government provided firefighters.


    1. Yes this is pretty stoopid by slate. Perhaps if this shirt said no taxes and no government then he would have a point. Or a shirt that was against firefighters.

  16. helped so many people by expanding coverage.

    Coverage at the cost of high premiums (which, presumably, they didn’t want to pay else they’d have previously bought a plan when they were cheaper) under threat of penalties (plans so good we’ll force you to buy one!), and only after having met the absurdly high deductible. So they’re poorer the monthly cost and poorer the money they shell out for care before they’re finally covered. What a success!

    1. There’s some think tank types tracking ObamaCare – Johns Hopkins, Kaiser. You’d think they’d have done some sort of analysis about actual out-of-pocket expenditures by beneficiaries. Maybe they have, and I haven’t seen it.

      If they have, you know its bad news, or it would be getting a lot of exposure. Based on what I see, most people’s outlay and exposure for health care expenses has gone up, a lot.

      Of course, OCare plans tend to be the worst of both worlds – high deductibles, like a catastrophic plan (the only way to keep premiums from going completely out of control), and high premiums, like a first-dollar indemnity plan (because of all the coverage mandates).

      If you were to sit down and design a system that would have a death spiral, this would be it. The only thing slowing the death spiral is the tens of billions of subsidies shoveled into the system.

  17. Still waiting for an all knowing, boot licking, benevolent progtard to explain to me how “mandated possession of health insurance” and “access to healthcare” are the same thing…

    1. Once you accept the principle that private property exists only at the sufferance of the state, it’s obvious. Oh, and math is evil.

  18. Still waiting for an all knowing, boot licking, benevolent progtard to explain to me how “mandated possession of health insurance” and “access to healthcare” are the same thing…

  19. “Lower Taxes + Less Government = More Freedom”

    I’m having a hard time finding a flaw in that statement.

    1. Apparently, accepting civic services like fire and police departments means embracing teachers unions and the like.

      Let’s never mind that fire services could easily be privatized.

      1. Let’s stop the wars/kinetic military actions, the corporate welfare, the public unions, the drug war, the militarization of the police force, the spying programs, the farm subsidies, the harassment of whistleblowers, the corruption of the Justice Department, the corruption of the State Department, the corruption of the IRS, and the complete evisceration of the Constitution, and then we can debate the need for fire departments and road, okay?

          1. *squints suspiciously*

            And who brought up Slate…comrade?

        1. If we cut the government back to basics, then we just need to tolerate the honest graft of overpaying the politically connect to build the roads. Sure the taxpayer got screwed, but at least he got a road out of the deal.

      2. Fire Dept is a separate line item on my tax bill.

        Its something that could easily be split off and paid as a service. Like my garbage collection is.

    2. If you take that motto at all seriously, you can’t possibly believe in a “Libertarian Moment”.

      Because what we’ve been getting is Higher Taxes + More Government. Which must mean Less Freedom. And I think the trend is accelerating, not slowing or heading for a reversal.

    3. This was one facederp that I had to push back on. Some of my “friends” think libertarians oppose fire departments. Yeah, that level of derp.

      1. Even Rome had a fire department. I don’t think of socialism and Rome in the same sentence though I suppose “bread and circuses” were a very primitive form.

        1. It just shows how successful the progressive takeover of education has been. To even suggest that the government does too much means you want no government at all.

      2. Unimaginative, incurios gits. Given the tremendous scale and complexity of our economy, let alone the incomprehensible sophistication of human affairs in all aspects of life, the idea that we couldn’t figure out how to pave roads or put out fires without the kind benefactors in government is just laughable.

        1. …or rescue our flooded neighbors using our own boats without a permit.

  20. None of those people will be able to get subsidized coverage through the exchange next year, because no insurer will serve the county’s exchanges

    question: will they have to pay the penalty for not having insurance?

    1. It’s not a penalty. It’s a tax. Except when it’s a penalty.

      1. Except it’s also not a tax, or the court wouldn’t have had jurisdiction over the case under the Tax Anti-Injunction Act. Because the Chief Justice said so.

    2. You have to laugh at this or you will cry. One of the funnier things about Obamacare is how easy it is to turn Progs language against them over it. Sometime get a prog defending Obama care and say “yeah but I think it is just wrong to tax people for the crime of being too poor to afford insurance”. Much hilarity usually ensues.

      1. That’s why there’s subsidies, dummy. Who cares if there’s no plans offered on the exchange, or very little competition between the few plans offered, or the deductibles are still going to be ruinously high for those forced to buy one, however much of the premium the subsidy covers, and the provider network is greatly restricted, and insurers are demanding higher rates or pulling the parachute, and nothing whatsoever has been done to make medical care cheaper or more accessible.

        1. +1 monopoly

      2. There’s also the “right to privacy” and anti-corporation angles to throw in their faces. We’re now legally obligated to disclose personal medical information to a corporate stranger.

        1. Do you own any guns ?

  21. “Perhaps supporters of the law believe that this is just an acceptable tradeoff, a cost that is worth the law’s other gains.”

    If we’re talking about supporters and progressives in the general public, there are two things going on:

    1) What people say is more important to them than what happens in real life.

    Trump saying that he would bomb ISIS despite the collateral damage is far worse in their minds than Obama actually killing hundreds of children in drone strikes, and Obama saying that he cares about those without insurance is far more important to average progressives than whether the ACA actually made people’s lives better.

    We should really understand that.

    It isn’t just about good intentions being more important than results or them not understanding the cause and effect relationship. It is also that the spectacle of saying you care about people is of immense importance, and once the progressive leadership and their supporters in the media have engaged in the public ritual of saying how much they care enough times, nothing reality can serve up to show that progressives were wrong is powerful enough to destroy the support for the law that was created by the magic ritual of progressive politicians and pundits saying how much they care.

  22. 2) They don’t believe there are trade offs because they don’t want to believe there are trade offs.

    It’s very much like average people who don’t believe in the science behind climate change. No matter what they say, whether the science is legitimate of secondary importance. Of primary importance is that they don’t believe there’s a trade off between the environment and their standard of living because they don’t want to believe there’s a trade off between the environment and their standard of living. I actually give them credit for that. I’d hate to think they’d throw in the towel on capitalism and embrace socialism just because science showed there was a trade off.

    Regardless, that’s what’s going on with average progressive supporters of ACA in the general public, too. They don’t believe there is a trade off between the ACA and the quality, cost, and availability of care because they don’t want to believe there is any such trade off. I don’t give them any credit for that because if they’d throw the towel in on central planning and embrace free market capitalism, the real solution to these problems would already be in the mail.

    1. something something..first law of economics…something something…first law of politics.

    2. That’s a good comparison re: climate change. I’ve long been saying that climate change will be better solved in a century given the technologies we will develop in an unhampered economy (fat chance!) than it is now given our present technology. Somehow we muddled through the Malthusian death trap of the nineteenth century. We survived two cataclysmic wars and weathered the threat of nuclear annihilation in the twentieth, and if climate change with global averages rising by a few degrees is the worst we face in the twenty-first, it will be our greatest century yet.

      Of course, that assumes the warmistas don’t get a good grip on the economy, because then we are well and truly fucked.

      1. There’s a saying I’ve heard Australians use often, “None so blind as those who will not see”.

        I’m not sure how to persuade such people on questions of science or economics, but surely we should treat them differently from people who aren’t being willfully blind.

        If those who are resistant to climate change solutions are objecting for reasons that have to do with the economy and their standard of living (rather than the science), then environmentalists who wish to persuade them would be ill-advised to keep pounding away at them with more science. If environmentalists really want to overcome their opposition, then they’ll probably need to address their concerns about their standard of living and the economy, and, yes, that means environmentalists need to come back at them with capitalist solutions rather than “solutions” that will never be implemented because they would destroy the economy.

        Those of us who oppose the ACA should probably take that to heart, as well. If progressive opposition to overturning the ACA isn’t particularly sensitive to economic analysis and pointing out the trade offs between cost, quality, availability, etc., on the one hand, and centrally planning the healthcare system on the other, then maybe we need to approach it from a different angle.

        . . . maybe just get rid of the individual mandate for starters?

        . . . maybe do something for people with preexisting conditions?

      2. . . . or maybe do nothing at all.

        Maybe all we need is a Republican in the White House who will sign something more reasonable when it comes across his desk. The fact is, we’d probably need a veto proof majority to override a Hillary veto, and I’m fairly sure that Hillary will veto anything that comes across her desk that really addresses the problems with the ACA.

        It’s not as if the ACA were wildly popular. We may not need to overcome public opposition. Maybe we just need to take the veto pen away from Hillary.

        1. My personal pet solution is for the Republicans to write a one or two page bill opening the buying of insurance across state lines. Then hold a presser for it, and announce the reason is so that competition will punish the insurance companies not wanting to cover these counties with exchange plans, and the market will force them out of business. When the Insurance lobbyists come around, simply say: “You decided you were for the PPACA in 2010. You supported it giving you a forced customer base. You supported the spending of taxpayer dollars to make good your losses. You decided to wholly side with one political party over another. I wish you the best of luck in free market competition, and if you fail, we will not ever spend one dime of the public fisc on your sorry butts. Now GTFO!” Because nothing will tell the insurers that the era of regulatory capture is over like forcing them to compete across state lines, and watching as a few competitors fail.

  23. Yep like when a prog espouses singlepayer….ask why they support a government run healthcare monopoly which forces people onto it.

  24. Only a prog would think:

    More taxes
    More regulations
    Min standards for healthcare programs
    More Subsidies

    Would equate to lower healthcare costs.

    1. Only a prog would think

      Assumes facts not in evidence.

      1. Only a prog would emote

  25. Well, duh, of course, it became expensive. Putting high risk people in the pool (health insurance for all) will drive up prices. High risk people need their own pools. So do low risk people. Age banding drives up prices for young people like me who insurers need to pay for their scam aka $400/mo health insurance. Duh duh duh.

  26. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2YZnTL596Q

    recently I keep thinking of Obamacare in relation to this scene from Apollo 13.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.